SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sağlık ve Toplum / 2017 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 3

Construct Validity of the Turkish Version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) on Diverse Chronic Diseases in Clinical Context.

Kronik Hastalık Bakım/Hizmet Değerlendirme Ölçeği Hasta Anketinin (Patient Assessment of Chronic IllnessCare- PACIC) Türkçe Sürümünün Çeşitli Süregen Hastalıklardaki Yapı Geçerliliği

BAHADIR DEDE
ERHAN ESER
Pınar Erbay DÜNDAR
Cemil ÖZCAN
Pages
56–63
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

CFA generated RMSEA as 0.086 and CFI as 0.967 for 5 dimension orginal version ; whereas RMSEA as 0.073 and CFI as 0.974 for 4 dimension Turkish version.Conclusion: Turkish version (5 dimension) of the PACIC is a reliable and valid tool, but 4 dimension Turkish version indicated better construct validity results.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: Construct validaity results of the 5 dimension Turkish version of The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) was published before Purpose:The aim of our study was to test the internal consistency and the construct valdity of the Turkish version of the PACIC on a group of patients having diverse Chronic Illnesses by EFA and CFA analyses.Method: PACIC was applied to 295 Patients who have benn monitored in Manisa CBU hospital.
📊
Key Findings & Data:SPSS 15.0 and Lisrel 8.85 were used in the analyses.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CFA generated RMSEA as 0.086 and CFI as 0.967 for 5 dimension orginal version ; whereas RMSEA as 0.073 and CFI as 0.974 for 4 dimension Turkish version.Conclusion: Turkish version (5 dimension) of the PACIC is a reliable and valid tool, but 4 dimension Turkish version indicated better construct validity results.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Introduction: Construct validaity results of the 5 dimension Turkish version of The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) was published before Purpose:The aim of our study was to test the internal consistency and the construct valdity of the Turkish version of the PACIC on a group of patients having diverse Chronic Illnesses by EFA and CFA analyses.Method: PACIC was applied to 295 Patients who have benn monitored in Manisa CBU hospital. Reliability was assessed via Cronbach's alpha and Construct validaity was tested by known groups validity, EFA and CFA analyses. SPSS 15.0 and Lisrel 8.85 were used in the analyses. Results: Cronbach's alpha values of the 5 dimenisons were found as 0.78 to 0.91. CFA generated RMSEA as 0.086 and CFI as 0.967 for 5 dimension orginal version ; whereas RMSEA as 0.073 and CFI as 0.974 for 4 dimension Turkish version.Conclusion: Turkish version (5 dimension) of the PACIC is a reliable and valid tool, but 4 dimension Turkish version indicated better construct validity results.

Özet

Giriş: Kronik Hastalık Bakımını Değerlendirme Ölçeği hasta sürümünün (KBDh-PACIC), Türkçe sürümünün beş boyutlu yapı geçerliliği daha önce gösterilmiştir. Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, KBDh'nin Türkçe sürümün, Türk toplumundaki kronik hastalığı olan bireylerdeki iç tutarlılığını ve yapı geçerliliğini açıklayıcı (AFA)ve doğrulayıcı (DFA) yaklaşımlarla tekrar değerlendirmektir.Yöntem: KBDh, Manisa C.B.Ü Hastanesinde izlenen 295 bireye uygulandı. Güvenilirlik Cronbach Alfa; yapı geçerliliği ise, bilinen gruplar, AFA ve DFA ile değerlendirildi. Analizlerde SPSS 15.0 ve Lisrel 8.85 sürümleri kullanılmıştır.Bulgular: Ölçeğin beş boyutunun Cronbach Alfa değerleri 0.78 ile 0.91 arasında bulunmuştur. AFA, Türkçe sürüm için dört boyutlu bir yapı ortaya koymuştur. DFA ile, 5 boyutlu orijinal yapı ile Türkçe sürüm arasındaki uyum: KUİ = 0.967 ve RMSEA =0.086 ; 4 boyutlu Türkçe sürüm ile uyum ise KUİ =0.974 ve RMSEA = 0.073 olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Türkçe KBDh'nin, geçerli bir araç olduğu, ancak dört boyutlu Türkçe sürümün daha iyi bir uyumu gösterdiği sonucuna varılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEDE, B., ESER, E., DÜNDAR, P. E., ÖZCAN, C. (2017). Construct Validity of the Turkish Version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) on Diverse Chronic Diseases in Clinical Context.. Sağlık ve Toplum, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 3, 56–63. https://ajindex.com/articles/305560

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Murray CJL, Lopez AD. Measuring the global burden of disease. New England Journal of Medicine 2013; 369:448- 57
  2. Ünüvar N, Mollahaliloğlu S, Yardım N. Türkiye Hastalık Yükü Çalışması 2004. Ankara: Aydoğdu Ofset Matbaacılık;2006: 2-12
  3. Bilir N, Subaşı NP. Bulaşıcı Olmayan Hastalıklar ve Kontrolü. Güler Ç,Akın L (Editörler). Halk Sağlığı Temel Bilgiler. Ankara. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları; 2006:1032-1034
  4. Haskett T.Chronic Illness Management: Changing the System. Home Health Care Management Practice 2006;18:492-496
  5. Wagner EH, Austin BT, VonKorff M.Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q1996;74:511-544
  6. Wagner EH, Davis C, Schaefer J, et al. Asurvey of leading chronic disease management programs: are they consistent with the literature? Managed Care Quarterly 1999;7:56-66
  7. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Davis C, et al. Improving chronic illness care: Translating evidence into action interventions that encourage people to acquire self-management skills are essential in chronic illness care. HealthAffairs 2001;6:64-78
  8. Rittenhouse DR, Shortell SM, GilliesRR. ve ark. Improving chronic illness care: Findings from a national study of care management processes in large physicianpractices, Medical Care Research and Review 2010; 67(3):301-320
  9. Bonomi AE, Glasgow R, Wagner EH, et al.Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC): A Practical Tool to Measure Quality Improvement. Health Services Research 2002; 37(3):791-820
  10. Glasgow RE, Wagner EH, Schaefer J, et al. Development and validation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC). MedicalCare2005; 43(5):436-444
  11. Rothman AA, Wagner EH.Chronic illness management: What is the role of primary care?.Annals of Internal Medicine 2003;138(3):256-261
  12. Rosemann T, Laux G, Droesemeyer S, et al. Evaluation of a culturally adapted German version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC 5A) questionnaire in a sample of osteoarthritis patients. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 2007;13(5):806-813
  13. Wensing M, Lieshoud JV,Jung HP,et al. The patients assessment chronic illness care (PACIC) questionnaire in the Netherlands: A validation study in rural general practice. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8(1):182-88
  14. Aragones A, Schaefer EW, Stevens D, et al. Validation of the Spanish translation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) Survey. Preventing Chronic Disease 2008;5(4):A113-A113
  15. Taggart J, Chan B, Jayasinghe UW,